tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN November 1, 2010 5:00pm-8:00pm EDT
the last 20 years and that immunizes you in some way. >> we have a great slate of candidates running for republicans this year. i would ask mr. barnes, are there any republican candidates on the ballot you would intend to vote for? >> i can tell you what i would not vote for. mark butler. he had a mistress of the capital and when it was found out she was being employed, her employer fired her and mr. butler send an e-mail to her employer saying i will punish you and make sure you remember this. as far as the rest of, i like johnny isaacson. i have not made the decision in
that race yet. >> mr. barnes has sent tens of thousands of dollars to federal people in the democratic party. some of whom are using his money to run against johnny isaacson, who i think is a great senator for our state. i think we of other candidates were very well qualified. this is an illustration of the fact that mr. burns believes he can send tens of thousands of dollars to the federal level to support the obama agenda. people like harry reid and dccc. i would urge him to be more impartial in terms of who he is going to support.
you appointed to the bench when you were governor. in the interest of fairness, there be a state law that would require judges to excuse themselves from presiding over a case if it involves the person who appointed them to the bench? >> forever? i don't think that is appropriate. for three years we did not appear before any judge. we did that voluntarily. they are signed on a rotating basis. if any time there was a fault if
they were not fair, is a method of recusal where they bring in in independent judge. only one case did i tried before a judge and it was a jury trial. barnes appointed. then they said do you have any objection? both sides would say no. that is what happened when i pointed to mr. deal's son. both sides said we don't have a problem. i don't think -- it was a good jury. i don't think he is corrupt. to say something like that is making a mountain out of a molehill. >> i will give you a bottle. >> we agree on one thing, that my son is an excellent judge.
but i think if you want to avoid any appearance of impropriety, then there should be some type of prohibition. he says he has not tried any cases, he has handled many cases. handling is sometimes all that is required to get a settlement. we have seen cases where a $456 million judgment was entered and a judge to elevated it was a judge to mr. barnes appointed. >> that is absolutely false. i did not appoint mel. he was either appointed by -- he could have been elected first. it is a good example of how they stretched the truth. >> let's move on to the next question. >> being governor is about
leadership. during your 18 years in congress you were the lead sponsor on only seven bills that became law. you did not hold any significant leadership positions, so why should we of believe you can rise to the occasion of being governor? >> i did not go to congress to get my name on the legislation. most of the people said we have too many laws already. we don't want you trying to get your name on every piece of legislation. i have been a sponsor of many important pieces of legislation. i was the co-sponsor of a bill called megan's law. i was the author of the legislation that saved $10 billion requiring that you had to prove you were a citizen by way of documentation.
i would take exception to your statement i have not been in a leadership position. i oversaw major reforms in our health care industry and health- care programs across this country. if you talk to someone who has been involved in those they would tell you that. >> the next question from orlando. >> i would like to see how your numbers add up. how do we get to a balanced budget? who gets cut? where is the money coming from? >> is one thing we talk about free markets is the fact that you don't know how it will play out. the best way to do is create an environment. we want to get rid of personal and corporate income tax.
that allows the marketplace to flourish. as far as cutting on spending that, is what i in favor in zero based budgeting. if that passes while i am governor i will sign it. you don't know how it will play out because things go exponentially. >> when all three of you were asked a question we will cut your time to 30 seconds. thank you for staying with and that. >> ever but it recognizes this will be a difficult year. zero based budgeting is appropriate, but you must prioritize where your spending should be. i have prioritized it in four big areas.
health care is an ever increasing burden that could be made worse. i believe there are areas we can improve on. i have found no one that believes the current collection process is appropriate. we can increase revenue. >> we should go to a point of sale collection and the sales tax. then you take each department -- the economy we had 9/11 in the midst of my term as governor. you had to prioritize heavily. the first priority has to be a direct instruction. if you cannot educate your children in a full school year i question why you exist as a state. >> next question from, crawford. >> in 2007 he reported total income of $205,000.
the federal taxes you paid amounted to 1%. your campaign has declined to provide information that would explain how you could do that. can you explain how you could have a total income of $2,005? >> you have made a great deal about the fact that i help my child with a business that was a retail store that had tremendous losses. losses offset income. it was fully disclosed with the tax laws. i have released 29 years of tax returns and i have paid more than my fair share of the taxes owed. if you don't think people should take advantage of losses, then
that is a major change. i have abided by the tax laws. i will continue to do that. >> are you happy with the answer? >> i would like for you to tell voters one thing you would do differently if they send you back to the governor's office and one thing he would not change? >> they policies we have are right. are you against smaller claims sizes and education? teachers' salaries being at the national average in georgia's history. are you against a mass transit system that moves traffic in the atlanta region? are you against the one program that brought about rejuvenation of many of our rural areas that have been targeted and reduced?
the policies were right. -- i did not spend enough time building consensus and trying to explain why we had to make these changes so rapidly in order to remain competitive. i think that i would do differently. >> you have the endorsement of georgia right-to-life, but georgia is the site of major medical breakthroughs. the state could be poised for big jobs. if the decision had to be made through jobs and banning stem cell research, where would you come down? >> i don't think you have to make those choices. it is clear there are a juror's -- areas where these are
happening in adult stem cells. those lines that are currently available. i think even with artificially created stem cells. our state is profiting right now from stem cell research. we will have been wounded warrior program to give us a great opportunity to do experimentation with spinal cord injuries. we are trying to get additional funding from private sources for those activities that will not only bring jobs but distinction to our state. i don't think you should create life for the sake of taking it. that is a moral issue and i stand firmly. >> this is an issue all the candidates should do. >> we have to realize that there
are some things government should not be involved in. the private marketplace should deal with it. it is not about government having answers or the solutions. it is about getting government out of the way in reducing the impact on people's lives. government should not choose what industries can participate and are willing to create jobs. >> i am in favor of stem cell research. it is some of the greatest breakthrough as we see in our time. i cannot believe anybody is against this. it fathoms the imagination. we had a breakthrough here at [unintelligible] it looks like it may help cure paralysis with avionics
themselves. there was an outcry by the same group that was asked about saying we have to stop this. in a't believe an embryo petrie dish is a life. i don't see how we allow these people that are suffering life- threatening injuries to be deprived of these life-saving measures. even nancy reagan is in favor of the embryonic stem cell research. >> the last question i asked you you mentioned there was substantial business losses that you suffered when he went to that business venture with your family. i believe there is a $2.3 billion bank loan coming due. given these financial decisions
and that the governor is responsible for a debate -- state budget, should taxpayers be concerned about the financial decisions you would be making? >> i am impressed you are so concerned about my financial situation. many people have asked me why i would do this. the answer is always when you have a child and you need to help them, you help them. i did not necessarily run the business. my wife and i have substantially reduced the debt. it was not at $2.3 million. we have already paid down on a payment schedule previously in place. we will be able to dispose of this debt. they should have no concern about me. i have an interest in another business, which is a very
successful business. i can manage the money of the people in this country. i have returned 10% back to the tax payers over 10 years. >> this question is to all of you gentlemen. how quickly would you were moved to -- is this something you would address next year? >> like most things in which you have some many levels of bureaucracy, it is not a quick fix. that goes to show that when you try to fix problems or thinking of new solutions you don't want to have an extra level of bureaucracy. we don't want to have the
federal government involved. you make sure that florida and alabama know that we are serious. it is hard to say what will happen, but negotiations will continue but it will not be a quick fix. i don't see it being resolved in the next year. >> i would pursue negotiations with the florida governor's. the next governor will not have the luxury of four years as mr. barnes had. the judge's order will not give us that long. what we have to do is this, we have to show we are doing everything we can to conserve this viable resource. we have to show we have a conservation plan. we have to fix leaking water
pipes, treat the water and return it in a greater fashion. in the event we are not able to conclude within the timeframe he has allowed, what we have to do is ask for an extension of time or reconsider some of the parts of his ruling. he has already put pressure on florida, but it will take aggressive action and building reservoirs. >> i would take that up next year. you have to do that now. we had planned 17 reservoirs' north of atlanta. they would be complete by now if they would have followed through. they were canceled the first year. we have to go through this conservation effort. i tell you one thing that has
not been taken up, the governor needs to have enough concern for this issue to go to the court and stand up to sit this is our plan. we need you to appoint another mediator that can report directly to you to bring these parts together. our current governor has cost the federal judge on the first page of the newspaper. i learned it does not help your case to cuss a fellow who has been appointed for life. >> next question from orlando. >> this relates to comments you both had made. both of you have said in a tough budget information -- perhaps college students being saddled with more debt and expenses, can
you explain why this should trump hope? to trumpt think it has hope. what both of us has said is they are equally important. i think pre-k is probably more important. there are triggers that have been put in that will take care of things. we know this. on early childhood when a child comes to that first grade, because lower income children don't have a big vocabulary that they have learned, then there is only a hope of closing half of the gap that exists. the way you close that gap is through great pre-k programs. toi don't think you have play one against the other, they
both are important. my mother was a first grade teacher. i understand the importance. i do believe we need to continue to monitor the way we are delivering that education to those children, but i also recognize we have kept some of our greatest students as a result of having the scholarship for those graduating seniors. we have to make sure we are doing everything we can to grow our economy. by the job growth we will have more revenue not only for the general budget, but also for the hope scholarship itself. you don't have to play one against the other. they will have a top priority as i moved into the governor's office. the board of regents to try to resolve any conflicts.
>> government, it will not help education. we need to give parents more choices. what we need to do is stop punishing responsible parents. ondon't need to focus just public education versus private education. we need a better program that looks at all delivery models. we already spend 50% of the budget on education. nobody has addressed the fact that we need parents to be more responsible. that is what happens in a free society. most of the time government is in the way. that is why we get some of the disastrous results with educations. we will give parents more choices and not punish them for being responsible.
>> more questions for the panel. >> given the continuing crisis at the state budget and enormous drop of sweat state revenue, would you consider the idea of legalizing casino gambling as a way to bring in more revenue for the state government? >> i have spoken about a free market system. being allowed to enter the market place and let the market and those who support it determine who is the winner and loser. we don't need to tell someone we don't like these jobs who are unemployed. free markets work. we don't need people who support these industries to take their money to another state. why should florida or mississippi benefit when we
should keep those funds in georgia? we will force the state assembly to get off their hands and open up the marketplace. i spoke to one state assemblywoman who said these industries are controversial. no, they're not. since when are free markets controversial? we need someone who is willing to get the job done. >> your view on the sources of potential revenue? >> i don't support either of those to generate revenue. you cannot gamble your way out of this downturn economy. the better way to get out of this is to grow jobs. that is why the primary focus has been cutting taxes. othert think the
alternatives are an acceptable approach. i would be opposed to it. >> i am not in favor of it. i do think we have not had the time to talk about this tonight, but it is an appropriate time to create jobs. that is the region we were the fourth fastest-growing state in the nation and created 235,000 jobs. georgette leads the nation in job losses. that was one month after 9/11 that that happened. you can see how things are distorted. one of the things i think we should do is we should make sure all services and contracts of the state of georgia are handled by georgia workers and georgia companies. we have outsourced calling and
consumer services of the state of georgia all over the world, including the philippines and india. it is time to take care of georgia and tax payers. >> what is your plan to create jobs right off the get go? >> bayh tax reform proposal is called real prosperity. it would waive taxes on new and start up businesses. it would reduce the businesses -- burden on low income businesses. it will do away with the marriage tax penalty. i assure you as governor i will be recruiting businesses from all over the country. being able to say georgia has the best tax climate is a good recruiting tool. >> we know how to generate jobs and let business do business. you have to create an
environment that is competitive with the world. you just heard my opponents say we have the industries that want to come to georgia and invest millions and create jobs. they are opposed to that. free markets work. that is the attitude we need in the governor's office. >> next question. >> i would like to start with you congressman deal. much has been made of the issue of voter fraud. i am wondering if you feel this is an issue in georgia? is it an issue you plan to address as governor? >> we will try to restrict you to 30 seconds. >> any time you hear of voter fraud it should concern us all. that is why i support our voter
id claim. that is one of the ways to prevent fraud. some of the stories we are hearing about people receiving absentee ballots that were never requested. those are serious issues. they do deserve to be investigated. i would take that seriously. >> the fraud that exists is with absentee ballots. it would put in a specific id. a specific id if you don't have a driver's license, which are the elderly or the infirm. then i think you ought to be able to sign an affidavit. the same law that did that listen to the absentee ballot.
because it was a partisan effort by the republicans in the legislature. they decided let's make it easier on that where the fraud was and more difficult. >> thank you. i have not heard many cases of fraud in georgia. the bigger issue is the machine that does the voting. our secretary of state has addressed this in his campaign. that is the bigger issue in which we have machines that if you had some type of elections irregularities, if you ask for a recount you will just get the same number. >> next question from orlando. i would like to go back to a question which is how you make
your numbers add up. i did not think you addressed any numbers. you talked about spending priorities. what is your cutting priority? i would like to know this revenue gap you will have. where will you make the cuts? >> until i get there to see the opportunity to have the budget forecast , it is difficult to be specific. we do need to take the zero based budgeting approach. a lot of what will have to happen next year will be put in place by the next time the next governor takes office. there are areas where we can privatize things we are currently doing. it is time that we dispose of some assets. >> one issue i have taken up
this i spoke of decriminalization of marijuana. 70% of the prison population is non-violent drug offenses. that is one area that affects families by taking people out of productive society and batting to the social services role. that is a huge area we can cut. in need to support public golf courses and museums. there are a lot of things we can do. that is where i would like to start. >> you should pick up around $700 million on a point of sale of inflation income tax. there are some places you look to suspend special interest tax breaks. of all things, health insurance companies got a $250 million tax
break the same year they took away the homeowner's tax credit. it's those type of priorities that have been are right. the other place you cut, you cut your manager. that is what business does. you have not cut your workers. >> you just mentioned to you supported decriminalization of marijuana. would you support an end to the war on drugs? would you spend that money-more productive ways? >> absolutely, we need to spend more on the violent offenders instead of those who make different social choices we may not like. that does not mean they should be put in jail for it. the war on drugs has been a failure. we spend tons of people's money
on it when we see what the results have been. i am in favor of ending the war on drugs. >> should democrats and others considering casting a ballot be concerned about the perception that you distance yourself from president obama? some of your views during this campaign season on immigration or health care may seem out of line with your democratic counterparts? >> i don't think so, let me make sure you know i am a democrat. one of the greatest expenditures in the history of the nation has spent $6 million making sure everyone knows me as a democrat. president obama is the president
of the united states. do i agree with him? no, but i agree with him more than i agree with george bush. methodist.eing a you may not like the preacher but you don't leave the church just because you know you disagree with the preacher. i thanked it was a great time when he was elected. i don't agree on several policies, but we will work all that out. will rogers says i am not a member of an organized political party, and i am a democrat. >> we have one more question for one candidate. >> a question for mr. bonds. during your time as governor the state of georgia redrew their
lines. why should voters believe you would encourage non-partisan redistricting? >> age, you learn a lot of things on -- over time. they did the same thing in 2005 when they took power they [unintelligible] right in the middle of the election. they cut her county in half. i don't cry about all of that, but it is time for both sides to put that away. florida has an amendment for an independent commission. california is going to an independent commission. this is one of the places they governor agree. he proposes an independent commission. it is time to do it. we talk about this check and balance that exists. we have a republican
legislature -- there will be a pretty good balance, but it ought to be done on a non- partisan basis. >> we have no more times for questions. each candidate will have 60 seconds for a closing statement. for first closing statement comes from roy barnes. >> on tuesday he will be forced to end this election hopefully. i want to tell you how much i have appreciated your support over the years. this election is not about roy barnes or nathan deal, it is about education, at the future. how weak -- how we create jobs -- i ask you to examine the qualifications on all of us. don't worry about whether we
are democrats or republicans. who is best suited to manage the troubled business of this march state of florida without scandal over the next few years? who would you call upon to run your own business? who would you choose to make sure everything is paid and the company is prosperous? news that standard and i believe he will vote for me and i would be honored to be your governor. >> next closing statement from nathan deal. >> 19 months ago the senator and i embarked on this mission to become the next governor of georgia. we have traveled all across this state and met some great people. i want to thank all of you for your prayers and hard work on behalf of my candidacy. the greatest strength our state has is its people.
there is a clear choice here. mr. barnes ask you who you would choose to run your business. they have chosen the ones who have been -- who have endorsed my candidacy. if you want a choice between someone who will cut your taxes versus someone who will raise your taxes and expand government? i promise that we will run this state with dignity, we will do the kinds of things you want us to do. i would be honored to be your governor and i asked for your vote. >> the final closing statement from john monds. >> we does honor those who came before us if we don't get back to those principles that really matter. that is a government that recognizes the rights of
individuals to live their lives as d.c. fit and are held responsible for those actions. we need limited government. that is the answer. that is what i propose to you. i heard you voters across the state of georgia. you are mad because you have heard these same promises broken by the major parties. if you want to go in a new direction that recognizes that being governor you should run the government and not people's lives, you have a clear choice on tuesday. that is john monds, for better results, for more practical solutions to everything you face. i ask for your vote on november 2. >> thanks very much. this does not conclude our debate. the general election is this
tuesday. our thanks to the panelists and the press club for arranging this debate. you may visit our web sites. we will -- thanks so much for being with us. tuesday is the date to vote. i am john pruitt. >> the debate series is made possible by donations from emory university. >> michelle obama made a day before the election stop in las vegas for harry reid. the first lady joined him at a high-school rally. he is in a tight race against sharron angle. the outcome is too close to call. you can watch election results here on c-span tomorrow night. we will have a victory and concession speeches. it starts at 7:00 p.m. eastern.
>> what might a republican controlled house mean for the technology industries? we will talk with two former advisers tonight on "the communicators." >> in 20 minutes we will be live with the -- previewing elections with pollsters. john mcardle was on this morning's "washington journal." host: john mcardle is here to talk to us about these top races to watch the day before the big vote. let's dig into west virginia. tell us what the recent polls are saying. >> it looks like the governor is stabilizing this. john jumped in late after the
death of senator byrd. he really caught the governor by surprise. this was the seat to lose. he continues to be one of the most popular governors. >> there were polls that have him ahead by several points. because republicans were able to make a good case that you may like him as your governor but we don't want him on capitol hill working with obama. they made it so they just died -- did not want him in d.c. favorable never seemed to catch on. this whole florida home situation was a big issue that led the democrats continuing to hammer him on a home exemption that he took. should he be west redding is senator or florida's senator? they pounded him -- west
virginia's senator or florida's senator? the account of him on that. i would not be surprised if this is a tidal wave of an election. republics can pick up was for denaarly in the night. there is still a path to a takeover. the smart money is that they -- they will get six to eight, but they probablyill not be able to take over the senate. host: we will discuss anything you want to bring upon, but we want to put the phone numbers on the bottom of the screen. these are the top senate and house races to watch. guest: there are probably about 110 to watch. host: yes, but let's go to kentucky, though. here is rand paul labeled the populist in time magazine this week. tell us more about what is
happening. guest: it seems that rand paul is actually pulling away in this one. over the wkend, a poll was put out that have rand paul up by 15 points. this was the seed that democrats were excited about possibly taking over. jim bunn and decided to step down. he had a very unpopular numbers and decided to retire. the democrats had an opportunity here, especially with rand paul. he was a guy that they paied as an outsider. he has a strange views. but there has been so much emphasis on defense and it sort of fizzled out of the end. specifically jack conway, the attorney general that is running year, his numbers just really tanked. many people attributed it to one of the ads that he is running bringing up some things about
rand paul during his college years. ... the democratic pols have this down by 15 and that is not a good sign for democrats. host: the denver post said today that it is so close. are they neck and neck? guest: i is either way at this point. this is a place where a outside groups have a lot of influence in this race. the latest is something like $25 million in third-partypending in this district. ken bode and michael hammaren have been hammering at each other. they have very competitive primaries. this is one question -- would it be so close if not jane norman, she was seen as much more
established and less controversial as can buck. -- ken buck. you cannot be looking in the past to much, but would it be more favorable if they had a less conoversial candidate in there? host: what can you say about these three races so far? guest: $25 million in outside groups, just outside party groups. all of them have this cycle, especially kentucky. both major parties decided to draw a lot of money at it early on. all over the map, i think we go to nevada next, and ifou want to talk about candidates, i angle's spendingol
alone in that race, i think it will be 0 million. she was seen as an outsider when she won the nomination, but money has been pouring in from around the country because of taking out the majority leader would be huge. host: ohio, first call, henry, independent, gd morning. caller: good morning. this is my first time getting through in years. host: we're glad you did. caller: thank you. i have generated a couple of books, but i cannot get through to you guys. [laughter] i'm really appalled, and i am 68. the for the state is protected by the first amendment, i think. i do not understand why we
object of the create the opinion that today, we spend so much time discussing polls and discussing who is going to win rather than discussing the people who may be winning, some of the tea party people that may be winning, some of the quality people that are running. it is unbelievably appalling. i have never seen so much polarization and i've never seen so many idiots run for office. host: your observations? guest: i think it is the state of politics. a lot of the issues that these candidates talk about a on the campaign trail are based on what their polls say people want to hear. the they're not just head-to- head polls. they craft their campaign media message are around it. it is the way it is practiced, for better or worse. host: montana, good morning. caller: i want to say a couple of things here today and i can
shut up about it for this cycle. i am 57 years old. this will be the first time in my voting life that i am just going to skip it because i do not see why it makes any difference. the american people get bent out of sha of the government -- at the government and now we're going to do what? if we will switch over to the party that draws off the cliff. the tax breaks for these wealthy people have been in there. and they tell us they have to have these breaks for the wealthy, but it did n seem to help us much. the american people don't realize that what we started to do the supply side economics -- ronald reagan, when he came in, ever since then it has fed the the upper crust at the cost of the middle class.
guest: one of the things he was making a comment on is the party that draws of the ditch is now going to get the keys again. it is an argument that the democrats were trying to make on the campaign trail. i read this morning that bill clinton and said, you gave republicans eight years to dig us into this whole, at least give us for years to get us out. maybe it helped them keep the senate, as many people are predicting they will keep the senate, but it looks like it will be hard for the democrats to keep the house. host: on e line for john mcardle, good morning. caller: good morning. we have the fifth congressional district here with the chairman of the house committee, john
spratt. we have some folks here that johnson -- the believe john's prep has brought some indignity to congress, so i hope we do not throw the baby -- has brought some dignity to congress, we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. guest: the house committee chairman, this is one of her cardinals for a while. they have been amped up to go after john spra for a while. i asked congressman spratt last week, u do not run away from nancy pelosi, right? your the house budget committee chairman, is it fair to say that you are part of the establishment? and he said, no, you want me appear because of a good
influence and in a good position to bring things home for the fifth congressional district. it is an argument that resonates. i was asking the opponent to john spratt down there and his comment was, if he is so great for our district, the unemployment is higher than the national rate. ever county in the fifth in district has a higher unemployment rate than the state average. it is a good argent, but it shows that every issue in this election is jobs and the economy, jobs and the economy. host: you mentioned the money earlier, but tell us what you think will make the difference for either candidate in this two-day. -- two-day time frame?
guest: our democrats going to turner for harry reid? from what i have seen, he is ahead in the early voting, but polling shows that he is down in the of what they predict will turn out tomorrow. harry reid is a fighter. he came out as soon as sharon angle won the nomination and hit her from day one. the other interesting thingn this race is that there are a lot of ways youan vote against her. tomorrow in nevada there are nine places on the ballot, including "none of the above." sharon angle will need everyone to vote for her, and not just against kerry reid. host: how big a deal will it be?
guest: it will be a knocking off of a giant. it will be a good night, especially for republicans and what they are anticipating, this will be knocking off the cherry. next host: phone call, good morning. -- host: next phone call, good morning. caller: i am sick and tired of having the polls try to announce the elections before we have had them. i think we should all lie to pollsters. guest: [laughter] it would make their job tougher, and there is alrdy a lot to do that. these auto dial polls were you do not actually have a live kolster on the other and asking you questions. a lot of people say they need to rethink the polling industry.
e other interesting this, i only have a cell phone, and i do not have a land mine anymore. how pollsters reach people who do not have a traditional phone in their house -- where no, they're going to allow of rethinking about how they do their job. there will be more on tuesday, after these results, out. host: lot of polling industry -- after these results come out. host: lot of polling information out there. was interesting here is the chart where they talk about the other issues here.
what other issues are driving people this year? guest: well, job the incident on friday with the bombs on the airplanes. is terror going to come back? wars in afghanistan? every poll would be those are down low. people want to have a day of work and put food on the table. until the economy does come back, unless something huge happens it will continue to be jobs. to be jobs and the economy. host: onhe democrats line, good morning. caller: this is mfirst time calling. they say that there are not a lot of jobs and a lot of people are not getting higher, but i
believe a lot of times when people go get the job and stuff, if they are getting unemployment, they're not worried about getting a job and no more and some people just say, if i'm getting unemployment, and actually making a living off of this. i did not graduate culinary school, but i went long enough to know the basics. and i'm really smart educated home cooking and i cannot even get aob at burger king a. some people will not go to a lower place and get a job. did not want to go down the ladder. they want to go up. -- some people do not want to go down the ladder. they want to go up. guest: john marshall in his race
against austin scott, i was sitting with john marshall and someone was complaining that he has jobs that you would love to give to people. and people were worried that he was staying on unemployment benefits for too long. and there was a lady in the room who said kayaleh who is this person because i would -- who said, who is this person who is offering jobs because i have a lot of people who would like to get jobs. it is a very complicated issue and it is on a lot of people's minds. host: here is a comment on twitchell. -- on twitter. about alaskask you as well, this three-way race. even was the latest? guest: the latest poll numbers
-- bendix we do not want to talk about poll numbers too much, but the latest has miller being more murkowski.etwating the democratic senatorial campaign committee is there this weekend. isador hard place to pull. and it is a place where you could - it is such a hard place to poll. and it is a place where you could be critical of the polling there. there is a big question mark about alaska, i think. miller is definitely in the driver's seat there. sarah palin did a big rally for him. she was very critical of
mainstream media. that will be a very late one to watch tomorrow, or i guess, early wednesday morning. host: tell us about what sh said over theeekend. she guest: was critical of the media becse the miller campaign released an audio tape from alaska where the phone was left on and they talked about the kind of people that would join for a miller rally and she blasted on twitter, calling them probiotic. -- calling them corrupt. host: next call, good morning. caller: i think many people do not unrstand what emigration
is. my problem is that mexico is a very rich country. and they are sending the poor people here for to take care of. they have over half of the section 8 housing. they get free medical, free dental, free food, free medication. and once they become citizens, they will be able to bring all their relatives here and their relatives will get all of these benefits, and it is going to break us. i would like mexico to take care of their own people. they are nice people. take care of your own country, though. if i asked this one lady who was running for school board what her stance was on immigration and she said she was for a comprehensive immigration, thinking i would not know what it meant, and i said, well, you are not getting my vote.
i wish you the best. so many people are hungry in this country, and i do not know what we have to do, but we have to do something good. host: immigration, in these close bellwether races, how much impact does immigration half? guest: i believe sharon angle had an ad that was highly criticized for being racist and talking about some of the immigration images she was showing. in louisiana, it has been a big issue down there. think about the primaries, some of these republican primaries that were almost defined by immigration issues. arizona, john mccain verses hayworth. hayworth look like he was closing the gap. it was a very big issue in some
of those republican primaries. when you were asking about other issues that were important to people, depending on the state you are in, immigration will be very high up on that list. host: john mcardle which will call, how long have you been working there? >guest: about seven years. host: covering many aspects of the legislative branch. delaware, ed, independent collar. caller: greetings from the great state of witches and marxists. i just had to get that out. i am an independent voter. i'm getting consed in this electi cycle, particularly when i watched c-span.
>> we are leaving this to go live to a preview of tomorrow's elections as democratic and republican pollsters analyze their final numbers. this just parted a moment ago. >> i would like to acknowledge the director of our school of media and public affairs, a person i think most of you are familiar with. frank sesno. [applause] thank you for joining us. he has been a huge supporter of this project. the acting executive director of the graduate school of political management, chuck christian. [applause] tomorrow, americans will head to the polls in a midterm election that will determine the makeup of the next congress. also at stake are 37 gubernatorial positions, lots of state legislative positions. this election is going to set
the stage for the legislative agenda over the next two years and likely serve as the starting gate for the 2012 presidential race. tonight, we're going to look at the numbers and see what they tell us about tomorrow and beyond. our excellent primary source is the club partisan battleground poll which was founded more than 20 years ago from the terence group. and from the democratic public opinion and lake research partners. their teams have produced one of the most historic and accurate public opinion predictors in all of survey research. seven years ago, the george washington university with our graduate school of political management became a partner in the poll and this fall,
politico joined us in the project. together, we have produced three polls over the last six weeks, taking the pulse of the public in the run-up to tomorrow's election. this evening, we have gathered the brain trust of the partnership to share in sites with their students, our faculty and friends. we are very pleased to be joined tonight by force to end group co-sponsors, including the gw hatchet, the gw college republicans and gw democrats. we're also pleased to welcome c- span viewers across the country. our format will comprise a conversation among the panelists on stage. initial questions from cosponsoring student groups and then questions from the audience. it is my pleasure to introduce from right to left, geographic, not ideological, george
washington university graduate school of political management professor christopher arderton. the president of the terence group and the president of lake partners and our moderator for the evening, the executive editor of political -- politico. [applause] >> thank you for coming. thank you for this amazing partnership. these polls have been fantastic for our readers and all of us to dissect. we have a great sample and great posters. everybody that has helped to pull these things together, this has -- this can be a real logistical nightmare, so we are really pleased with the partnership. i am going to make a bold prediction that democrats are
going to lose some seats tomorrow. [laughter] i'm going to let these guys make much more serious predictions. let's get a quick prediction on the house seats and senate seats and may be a surprise if you have one. >> i think democrats are going to lose some seats. i think we're going to hold on to the senate. i think the margin in the house is being overstated. i think one of the things important to remember is the key to picking of seats on tuesday, the seeds were planted when the republicans lost 52 seats in 2006 and 2008. just as the report of the demise of republicans was overstated in 2008, the report of the demise of democrats is vastly overstated as well. i also think in terms of surprise, watch for alaska. the other surprises we don't know what really happens until
we don't have -- we don't know what happens because of the number of recounts from the number of close races. >> i have to say that we have worked together for a long time and i feel badly for her because i've been in this situation before, maybe when we were losing the 52 seats of the last two cycles. i think it's going to be a huge night tomorrow night for republicans. we are seeing an intensity gap and an enthusiasm gap that is almost double 1994. we see a generic ballot advantage that is double what we saw in 1994. i think in the house, we started off with a target of making 60 races competitive and ended up with 100 races being competitive. right now, my count would be -- we only need 39 to get control. i think we're past that by six or seven seats in terms of
definitely going in the republican column with another 43 tossup seats. if i had to get a floor for tomorrow night, i would say 56 or 57 seats. i would say more likely we will be toward the top of that ceiling, in the high 60s. if i were to bet, i would say 65 or 66 seats are very likely for tomorrow night. in terms of the senate, i have always been one that believes if you look at the senate, the senate tend to be more susceptible to waves than even the house. i see as at 48 seats already with four tossup seats. all we have to do is one half of the tossup seats. this is the type of election where anything close goes our way just like in 2006, anything close went to democrats. i could see a scenario where we are at 50/50 rather easily. tomorrow night -- we will not know tomorrow night, i believe
it is probably going to go for weeks before we have a final answer. in a terms of governorships, i think we are at 31 governors of the 50. the untold story is i am looking at somewhere between 425 and 450 state legislative seats going to the republican direction which would be somewhere between 14 and 15 chambers turning republican to our night. >> thank you. i guess i'm sort of in the middle. i think we're certainly going to see a fairly strong tide running toward the republicans tomorrow and i think it will be in the high fifties or low 60s in terms of numbers of seats. i think the senate is harder to predict and i want to point out that it was deliberately designed to be insulated from short-term cycles, which is why it takes six years to get a poll body elected.
it is also the case -- to get a full body elected. in every way -- everyway that occurred and the house side, the senate as also tipped over. mostly that has happened when you get contagion from the top, when you get the presidential coattails bringing the senate over. i think it is going to be very tight on the senate side -- 52 or 53 democrats being reelected. i live in the state of connecticut and i have been doing my informal yard sign pole and a note it reflects the amount of spending, but i think we may see linda mcmahon coming in much stronger than people think she's going to. >> you may get that 12 or 13. >> on the enthusiasm get, very rarely do we actually have terms we all use behind the scenes seem to be part of the lexicon because everyone is talking about it. for those of you who have not
followed this closely, we started to see this late last year in the virginia and new jersey gubernatorial race, we're seeing republicans turn out in record numbers. we see low democratic turnout. we have talked a lot about the enthusiasm gap, particularly the enthusiasm. you pointed out a single women and younger voters and you had hoped to see some uptick in those groups to offset the republican margin. have you seen that or any evidence in this poll or anywhere else that the enthusiasm gap has closed and it will not be for bad as democrats? >> it has closed, but it is bigger than it has been in the past. what is really interesting is if we think about 2012 as opposed to 2010, 2010 is the last election of the 20th-century electorate. 2012 on will be elections of
the 21st century electorate. what is interesting is all of the new, younger voters, the much more diverse and minority- oriented electorate. the unmarried an electorate are not showing up to vote in anywhere near the numbers they need to in 2010 and that is affecting democrats pretty seriously. you can expect them to be back in 2012 and 2012 on. whatever the setbacks are tomorrow night, it is going to be a fast comeback for the democrats in 2012 and beyond. the second thing i would say is that turnout is very important. in many of these states, you see very impressive early vote and a vote by mail efforts. that can all make a difference and not sure that is getting fully picked up the least traditional polls. the enthusiasm gap is a big problem. it is not too late to turn the enthusiasm -- the enthusiasm get
ahead -- go votive you are democratic. it is a problem we are unlikely to see in 2012 and 2014. >> ed is beaming the behalf of self-confidence. >> the election is wednesday, right? [laughter] >> only in chicago. >> if tomorrow night, it turns out you were wrong and the number is in the low 40's, what might you be missing? >> that is speculation. there is such data out there today and one of the misperceptions, one of the myths of the 2008 campaign, was there was the talk of a new electric, a different electric, massive change in who was turning out. -- different electorate.
what 3 look to the african- american vote, hispanic voters, new voters, they were all within a percentage point of what had been four years older -- four years earlier. total turnout was only 0.2% higher than four years earlier. we pretty much have this down. there may be stories out there, but we pretty much have this down on who is going to turn out. about 70% in a presidential year and 50% in a non- presidential year. every survey out today and this weekend was just confirming a trend that was there. what is interesting about the enthusiasm gap is it surfaced and we identified that in 1994, but it was not called the enthusiasm gap. it was only 6% in 1994. it has been running between 12% and 14% this year. that's going to be a hard thing to miss.
you see things like president obama in cleveland on sunday. 8000 people turned up. when he was in cleveland to years ago, 80,000 people turned out. turnout in terms of early voters -- 5000 on the day he was there- year, this time, 650. the difference between 2008 we had to give the voters a little ledge and at this time we have to drag them kicking and screaming to the polls, i don't think there is going to be a massive difference. are there a lot of close races? absolutely. are there enough close races in the house that you and up with 30 rather than the 65, i don't think there are that many. the real story, if there is a difference are stories like nevada s, does it end up going against harry reid.
nobody is watching delaware anymore. we pretty much know that the witch is dead. there are not going to be many surprises there. >> one of the most interesting things in the poll we saw this time and last time is that conventional wisdom in washington as people see congress as being much more liberal than obama. but when you match up obama vs congress, he does worse and by a big margin that congressional democrats that when they are matched up against congressional republicans. how do you think obama should interpret the results of this election? is it a repudiation of him and his policies or is a 9.6% unemployment and there's nothing you can do? >> he has the economy working against him. to some extent, is the enthusiasm gap or what the queues and recalls the engagement cap, is real. the question is what is causing
it? to a large extent, is that the public prefers divided government. they are unhappy with the drift of the policy in washington where all three congress, both sides of congress and the white house have been in one party's hands. when you ask people a bunch of questions, they seem to be voting as much against obama as they are for the republicans. so i think it would be easy for republicans to overstate this mandate and they should watch that just as a lot of democrats, me included, overstated the mandate obama got in 2008. >> you are known to advise leadership that comes to you. how do you think they should interpret it? the republican numbers are still in the tank.
>> the two words in politics i hate the most, one is branding, which i think has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with marketing product. that is not what politics is all about. the other is mandate. if there is any interpretation of a mandate, it's a huge mistake on the republicans' part. what we do see, however, is a total rejection of the obama solutions. they do not believe it is working or beginning to work. they are basically 60% of americans believe the stimulus is not working. you see very similar numbers in a four-one strongly against health care. spending has come roaring up as the no. 2 issue in a country. the economy, if it improves, you'll see spending as the number-one issue. all that is driven by obama policies.
one of the things that ultimately the president and his people have to sit back and look at, they will have to say basically it is not a matter of us not being able to communicate what we want to do. what the american public has seen, they don't like and want something done different. part of it is we cannot overreact and claim is a mandate. i think there will be huge expectations in terms of us being able to turn around some of the wrong in terms of policy. but i also think the president is going to have to address it in terms of i've got the message. if he walks away from this saying -- not saying that the message, i think he is going to be in deep trouble and almost doesn't matter. >> this notion of a divided government, is there any empirical evidence that people vote the strategically and not only prefer divided government, but vote as such?
>> people prefer divided government, but i want to argue a little bit with the premise laid out here. we have asked in several polls, which bothers you more -- the policy going the wrong direction or nothing getting done. more people are bothered by nothing getting done. we need to separate out when people are unhappy about the stimulus and the recovery, lot of voters, not republicans -- republicans are totally unhappy with the solutions. but among independent voters and female voters, they're upset because nothing is getting done. the challenge here is your going to come back with parties even more polarized than before. a republican party made a more conservative and a democratic party or the liberals will have succeeded because of the districts they come from. i don't think voters will tolerate gridlock for very long. you could see the electorate just as angry. i don't see this as a rejection
as 2008, but 2010 -- still marks our failure as a party. it is an affirmation of what we sold in 2008. voters want change. they want something new and different. i think that is not happening. >> the new and different their voting against it -- voting against is what they are seeing in that the new and different voting for. >> for the republic, for not getting direction from the public on which we want to go. >> i think the best way to get an indication is the question we asked, do you have more trust or less trust of government than two years ago. by 62-32, they said the trust government less than two years ago. one of the numbers we saw going into the 2008 campaign is a high volume of people saying we want to see the government doing more. now what you are saying is we want the government to do less.
they're doing too much and are too involved. the president himself finally had to acknowledge in terms of the stimulus that he has come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a set -- as a shovel-ready project. >> this is complicated because -- this is a sincere debate there will go on between the parties and within both parties. you think government is doing too much and we listed focus groups with blue-collar, democratic leading voters, they say yes in terms of doing too much for the banks and not enough on a moratorium for foreclosures. the a difference between kinds of things are getting done and are not getting done. the democrats would have been in a better position if we had got more loans to small businesses and your bailout to banks and put limits on ceo salaries and
have a public option in the health care plan. i think there is a real, legitimate debate about the message the public is sending. they just know they're damn unhappy and they want something to be done differently. your rightabout mandate. i'm with you. the most overused word. mandate -- i agree with you. >> here is where the secret is. the secret is the underlying focus you have seen on this explosive into second place focus on spending. >> primarily republicans. >> it is not traded is overwhelming with independence and conservative democrats. it is not just a republican thing and that's why it's the no. 2 issue in the country. >> if democrats deliver on the economy, we should not lose focus on delivering on the economy. if we do things like that social
security to deal with the deficit, the democrats are going to be a prominent minority party, primarily beat and the fourth they even get started. >> the things that have been different about this election that have worked in republicans favor is -- one day, republican spending. the last couple of elections, they have been at a disadvantage. this has brought -- as these -- these at a outside groups have bought republicans to parity. >> parity? >> if you take all of the money, is parity. >> not if you take it in the last couple of months. the avalanche of money because of citizens united -- >> democrats have a much bigger advantage of a party committee in individual races. if you factor those, i think it's about even. >> somebody fact check us.
>> the other points that we will discuss bonds -- it you party movement, fascinating for all of us. it may dissipate, it may not, but it has fascinating to cover. and the swing to -- swing from independence who were with obama and moved away from democrats and never came back. which is more important? is it the independence or b t party movement that has risen up and given new motivation to the -- the tea party movement that has given motivation to the republicans? >> part of that is the tea party movement and the life they have breathed into the republican party. the story is the independence moving back and forth across the electorate depending upon who is in power and their unhappiness with whoever is in power. 2008, there were looking back toward the bush administration and the not like that.
we wound up with a democratic administration. now the independents are swinging back the other way. >> aren't independence fickle and you can't satisfy them no matter what? >> they distrust both parties. the bigger thing is they dropped from 26% -- 36% in a presidential year and 26%. >> they are just not likely voters in our poll. >> they are still there, but what you are going to see tomorrow, as we have seen in many of the elections that have occurred already, you see the republican bill leading by 15 or 20 points with independence. that will translate on election day into a two-one margin.
it is the angry independent that here now to vote. i have to go back to the spending. our analysis is that parity. your living in a different world when you have george soros on tv attacking karl rove for the money is bringing into the election. >> maybe we can unite here on campaign finance reform. i do agree about the angry independence, but the other thing i would say is [unintelligible] which means they are hard hit in this economy. one of the untold stories is how much the independents have suffered in this economy and how much the policies have not touched their lives. whichever party comes into power is going to have to deliver. if you want to win in 2012, you better have an economic policy
that delivers for blue-collar america or the tea party will be nominating the next president of the united states. we have economic policies in both parties that have not helped blue-collar america. >> the conventional wisdom is post-election, obama will be more consolatory and gravitate toward the center. i'm not sold that that is what he will do, nor do i think it will be that easy to gravitate toward the middle because there is incentive not to move to the middle as there was a 1994. it doesn't seem like he can win the election without changing the numbers. >> i think the pressure on the independence is whether you win them back because the levy or whether you win them back because they hate your any worse than they hate you. thet now, it's not that republicans have won the
independence because they love republicans. the most important thing is angry independence -- particularly in off-year elections. they drive the vote particularly in off-year elections. an important piece here is to draw a clear economic distinction and what's really have a debate, particularly with these tea party candidates. these independent voters to not want to deal with the minimum- wage -- do away with minimum- wage, security, cut funding for education or keep tax breaks for millionaires. fight in athe visible way. i think the president is going to be torn between trying to work for halves with a house that's not going to work with him and drawing a clear distinction on the policies so these independent voters have a clear choice in 2012. >> going back to the question
about whether the president is going to try to unite. he is going to have an opportunity because so many districts are blue dog districts. that means the democrat congress is going to be much less conservative. it's going to be that much more liberal. the republican congress is going to be that much more conservative, which allows them to triangulate. does he have it in him to do it? without getting into it, want to talk about the elections and not policy, because i would disagree with almost everything she said in terms of policy. it's a simplistic view of where these voters are. it's a simplistic view of what has been done. they can play class warfare on the democratic side and they have i will give you an example. the democrats in this campaign have been in race after race after race bringing out partial
privatization, the typical scare tactics late in the campaign in terms of this is what the republicans are going to do. guess what we were able to do? all we had to do is talk about health care bill. seniors take the president's health care barrel. they hate obama care. phillips going to hurt the men don't think it's in their best interest. we have current policy verses manufactured policy to discuss in the campaign and that's why did not make headway with seniors and the largest propensity to vote in the off- year election, that senior group, is going to vote overwhelmingly republican to our night. >> since you have already told us we're going to happen on tuesday, let's talk about 2012. are there certain candidates that emerge stronger on the republican side as a result of what we're likely to see tomorrow? is there a candidate out there that when you look to the issue matrix of what people care about looks more appealing tomorrow than they did six months ago?
>> i do not think there will be a challenge in the democratic party. item think it will be anybody other than obama as the nominee. on the republican side, the tea party represents a real challenge to washington establishment. the question becomes who they might be interested in putting up against sarah palin or a candidate of that ilk. you may want to look at a governor like haley barbour or tim pawlenty. just to give you my view of obama triangulation, and it's going to be difficult for him because the key party is going to hold the republican leadership to a very rigid line. i'm not sure how far across the aisle obama is willing to reach
in order to reach a compromise. other than the mandatory bills on spending, i look forward to very little getting done over the next two years and the president retreating into foreign-policy as an area where he has more leverage and independence. >> knowing you will never vote for any of them, is there any hope the republican candidates you think looks better tomorrow than they might have six months ago, given the issues we're talking about? >> sarah palin looks better than she did six months ago. i can't wait to have her nominated. go girl. i like the fact it was a woman they gave them some much trouble. on a serious note, i agree with chris. voters are frustrated with washington and will be frustrated with washington in two years.
one of the big difference is for clinton's triangulation was because the economy was coming out, he had the ability to do smaller things and package them in a way that looked like bigger things. obama does not have that luxury. the economy is in terrible shape and voters are pessimistic about the future. there's a real divide in this country and the tea party does not think small. there is a real division here about what is possible to get this country going. i think the governors, because they have to deliver in tough times in their states, could have a real opportunity here. i think haley barbour is a good one. he is tied to washington with an outsider's perspective. he is a good candidate, but the party will have to juggle the palin faction.
she will sell well in some places. >> i feel like they want me to be nicer to them because they both know i am close to haley and he is my guy. one thing we see is that there's a feeling inside the republican party that all too often we have gone with the next person in line. the one who has been there the longest. there are some indications that and it's who were in the last round of the presidential sweepstakes are not going to be looked as closely as what would traditionally be the case. new faces are going to be looked at closer and i think it's a good thing for the republican party. i do think some of that is driven by the fact that they feel like at the end of doing in 2008 even though that wasn't the case.
a muchou're going to see longer process to see some names surface that will be the real names in the campaign. it may be one of the other governors. it is clearly -- i think governors have a leg up here. i'm beginning to hear from some of the democrats that were big obama supporters is they are beginning to say i still like the guy, but he did not have enough experience and maybe he was too young or was too early for him. i think that's going to drive a little bit of looking for some maturity on the republican side. who is a grown-up in the room will be a key issue. even the supporters of obama who may like some of the things he has done will take a step back and say if i were to acknowledge a witness, this is the witness i
would acknowledge. >> there is a reserve of goodwill -- 65% of these likely voters in this election year still like obama or support him as a person, not his policies, but as a person. >> the other thing i would say about the data in terms of democrats, there may be questions about whether obama comes to a state or not because of the independent voters, but there is no question that they have welcomed his calls. democratic voters love obama and think he's doing a good job. it is the independence. >> the more fun thing to watch has been the competition between build clinton for hillary and joe biden to prove it would be dead vice- presidential nominee for president next time around. -- would be best vice- presidential nominee.
>> we have all these college kids here. they want to know if they're going to be a will to get a job and if washington could quit being so damn dysfunctional. they want to see of government can operate. >> be nice to your mom because you're probably going home. >> how do you fix this problem where we are constantly in the state of partisan warfare and you have people not voting for something. a seem to be voting against it except for potentially obama and the margins. give us a cure. how do you fix it? >> i think we need campaign finance reform. i think the special interests have way too much power.
whether you have been outspent or not -- we can talk about that later -- the democrats feel outspent. they will not want to alienate the special interests. you did manage to drag yourself back to washington, the republicans are totally indebted to special interests. >> true or false -- after this election, democrats are going to see what republicans did and they're going to copy it and make sure they do a better than republicans did this time. >> we can't. we don't have that. to that have access kind of corporate money. insurance companies are not going to do that. i think democrats are going to be energized around campaign finance reform. the second thing is filibuster reform. there is a growing momentum on the democratic side and now
looks really good. filibuster reform is something -- it is not right. >> give us some hope. >> are not sure i've got any hope for you. if i will say that the last time we had this strong partisanship was in the early '50s and it was the rise of an external threat, the soviet union, that pulled people together, first on foreign-policy than domestic policy. we could speculate about what kind of foreign threats might do that and i'm not sure we want to get into that nor hope will happen. the other possibility is sooner or later, leadership emerges that puts together a majority party in which the minority party begins to accept it is the loyal minority and not trying everything it can to get back into the majority. we have had divided 50/50
governments since 1988 and we have been directionless as a nation since then. >> the country has been basically split a 50/50. what you are seeing is the government is reflective of what you see where as the party ideas of the country -- i think that is tough. sometimes they say it is a good line -- this is about the future of our children and the future of our grandchildren. the line you're hearing this year is it's about the future of our country. i believe there's a deep feeling that goes way beyond the tea party that economically, we are in deep trouble. there is a better than what is given credit for understanding that the reason why the stimuluses and working is that when you spend that kind of money to create government jobs and the money runs out any have
not created a mentality for growth, you have ended up with a deeper hole than you started out with and they understand that and are reacting to that in this campaign. quite frankly, if we don't get back to basics, the class warfare, but the basics of how do you build an economy that you can truly grow -- 2% growth is not going to do anything to change the unemployment rate -- we may very well be facing the economy that for the last two years will look the same for the next eight years. that's the concern and it's not about class warfare, it's about government can only do one thing -- it can create a better environment in terms of growing the economy. it cannot create a better economy. >> if you want to help, there you are. >> we're going to take some questions from students. if i was going to create my own newspaper, i would not end up
naming at times, the post -- i would name at the hatchet. >> "and had" is excited to co- sponsor this event with politico. -- "the hachette" is excited to co-sponsor this with politico. students were really get excited for obama last election cycle, but this what we are not turning out. is it a fair comparison to compare midterm election cycles to the last presidential cycle? was the last presidential cycle an anomaly? how should we look at this tomorrow? >> i would say it is not a fair comparison. it's something we know going into the election. what you have seen in the last four presidential elections, these growth has grown from 16, to 17, to 18%.
during that entire time, the youth vote turning out in a non- presidential year hovers between 10% and 11% and it has not changed year to year, even with the intensity of what was there in the 2006 election where there was a higher support level. the support margin of the youth vote for democratic candidates was almost the same as a loss for obama in 2008. but it did not impact turnout. it is an unfair comparison. i do know there is some disenchantment, if you will, with what they expected to happen. it is lived by the sword, die by the sword. our feeling about president obama when he ran in 2008 was he left himself to be a blank slate. he allowed whoever wanted to apply whenever hopes or dreams they had to him specific about
what he was going to do. he allowed it to be whoever heard the message out there. that works for you in the tide is in your direction and it works against you in a big way when the time -- with the tide is against you. >> inevitably, elections are about candidates. we're looking at about 435 separate elections plus gubernatorial and as candidates don't have the visibility and charge for the young people that obama had. so it is comparing two very different phenomenon. >> i think it is wrong to think of you as complete monolithic. one of the things that you see more enthusiastic are conservative views. one of the questions on the table is did democratic youth turnout as much in 2010 as they
did in 2006? that is still up for grabs. will the use turnout have peaked in 2008 or will they be back in 2012? the interesting thing about you, as you know, particularly hard hit by the economy, so i think there is they've put into an economic change and i think the single biggest challenge the democrats face is outlining an economic policy where real people think at a micro level and not a macro level, that they think they can get a job, start a family, purchased a house, and that is true for people who are 55 and true for people who are 18. >> the only thing i would add is it is so easy to fall into a trap that this is a new group of young people what turned out when in fact we only saw within the margin of error increase in
their percentage of the vote. what was more important in terms of the numbers is that in 2000, george w. bush when the youth vote -- when the youth vote by 1 percent sign. he lost by 11% in 2004 and 34% in 2008. what happened with the youth vote for republicans and specifically the republican party was not that a bunch of new young people came into the process and started voting against them, they lost the support of the youth vote. that's much more important message for the republicans and internally something we have been dealing with. >> it is still the only segment the democrats do well with. >> and freshman rep for the george washington college republicans. >> with republicans expected to take back the house and perhaps the senate, led to the american 60 -- what do the american people expect in policy changes
that will republicans be able to do it without gaining back the senate and having the presidency? question. tough expectations are very high. the expectations with the electorate is that they want republicans to stop the bad things that happening, the direction of the country, the spending at the level is going on. they're scared about the health care bill and what that's going to mean and potential taxes coming. as much as the democrats may play class warfare, what i am hearing in the group's is something that i would never hear -- a realization that there are not enough millionaires to pay for all this stuff. they know the bill will come back on them. can it be done without the full house? probably not. are they going to have to deal with those expectations? absolutely. the question is can they play
the role of the calvary? stop the bad things from happening until the real troops get year. the real troops are going to be the white house. >> that's the one certainty about the republican majority. they have to deliver on spending cuts, even if they are fairly superficial. i of the next congress is going to tackle anything structural as far as entitlement reform. i think it will ban earmarks or limit them as far as non-defense discretionary spending which is a tiny portion of the budget. they have to do that symbolically because that's the one message the tea party and those independents have come together on. that is for republicans can have success and it's also where they lost their way. by spending standards, a few compared bush to lbj, this is a big government liberal the way bush covered as far as the prescription drug benefit and
that's why the republican new had soured so much. they will be under a lot of pressure to repeal health care. my guess is they will do a vote early and move on, knowing they can do anything with it. that's my assumption, that it will try to get out of the way early in the session. >> if you remember years ago, there was also security and medicaid provisions they tried to undo because it ends of not being the right thing. it wasn't until the with the president that would uphold not be dealt with trying to do that they would veto the legislation. it's going to take the white house. >> one of the sad things about the political system as you can take issues were there is tremendous overlap between the two parties -- whether it is reauthorization of natal of behind, free trade agreements, the investment component of the energy bill that went down last
time around, on tax cuts for people making less than $250,000, immigration reform, there's a lot of overlap. making it easier for people who come overseas to be able to stay and keep a job. on every one of those issues, they end up getting snarled in part -- in partisan politics. >> one of the dilemmas, and this is where the tea party is an interesting new factor, both of the parties are divided internally and some of these questions. if you look for example trade policies, the democrats are divided and trade press the. if you look at the deep party, they are populist, pretty blue collar and nationalistic and their economic policies. you could imagine a trade
dialogue tell be quite appealing to them, a made in america dialogue. some of these issues ride both parties in that complicated. it'll be interesting if the republicans go up fast and tried to do some big things. the republicans used to say repeal health-care and other sears' repeal and replaced because repeal is unpopular. voters don't want to go back and start over again. they would like to make it better. if the republicans come in fast and deal with some of the problem -- some of the policies of the campaign trail, it allows democrats to oppose joint things that should be done together, for example the 1099 provisions which are very unpopular on both sides of the aisle. if republicans say repeal, we can say let's get this done. you may be able to avoid a presidential veto. there is a lot of jockeying for
both parties. >> your going to have a very different leaders in the house. john boehner is not new to gingrich. -- is not new to gingrich. -- newt gingrich. there is a least a potential to work together. nate purchase -- a perkins is president of the gw college democrats. >> a lot of people my age in have cellphone. a recent study by the pure research center said there is a 4%-6% gap that survey people with only sell funds and other surveys that only do headlines. for each of the pollsters, what are you doing to combat this and
how are you coping with this problem? >> that is a really good question. both of our firms are using cell phones all lot. in all of our studies this year, we have used voter files for most of our studies. if you put down your cell phone, which most young people do, as your point of contact on the voter registration, that is the phone we use. we have also tried to assess the problem and encourage all clients to use self funds. in preparation for the 2012 electorate, it's going to be mandatory. you are not going to have an accurate sample if you do not use sell funds. >> i would differ a little bit with what pugh is finding. its 18% of the electorate 10% of the electorate, you're talking but a difference.
we not only the battle ground together, but we are the pollsters for rock the vote. we've been dealing this for quite some time. what we have been doing on our side is doing a series of surveys where we look at a set of issues, particularly with young people, on a difference between young people what cell phones and young people with land lines. what we have done to date is not much of a difference between us. i think some of the difference is overstated. the use of in terms of the voting in that 34% net democrat is fairly monolithic in how their viewing the issue then voting. if you begin to see a splitting of that between the use that have land lines and use that have cell phones, then he would have that much more of a drive to assemble that includes sell funds, which can be done.
it is a matter of cost or do you see the divergence between those with landline then sell funds. is it something we are monitoring very closely. -- landlines verses cell phones. they don't like the polls, so they come up with reasons why it's working. believe me, we are interning every stone in terms of how we approach looking at this. quite frankly, as opposed to public polls, when we do polls for individual candidates, if we are wrong lot, we are no longer in business. the public polls can say something changed between this poll in this poll, so it doesn't matter. >> the last question is from the news director emeritus wgur radio. >> in a "new york times" poll,
and eight silver reiser is a great deal of consternation in his in box about the generic congressional ballot. gallup shows republicans up 15 points, fox news says 13, cnn says 10. cbs says six and "newsweek" reports democrats ahead by three points. he explains the distinctions. in this polling pluralism, what are americans supposed to take away from all this besides confusion? >> listen to the battleground poll. >> i can give you an example inside the battleground poll. we saw this as a standard in the last election. a lot of people were speculating what the electorate would look like and they began pulling samples not on what they knew the electorate would look like, which was not much different. but what they assume that the electorate was going to look
like. we screen out people and say the are definitely not going to vote and include everyone else. internally, will lead to is modeling that takes into account how intense they are about voting, how intense effort can't it, the older they are, a higher propensity, the more educated, the higher the propensity to vote. if youif you are college-educatu will come out much higher. we thought it would come out around 50% of the electorate. when you look at the likely voters, our generic ballot in this survey was five points, the republicans' five points ahead. but when you look at our vote model on what we think the electorate will look like, it was different.
it is not just a five-point lead but that 12 point lead. what we're getting in these various surveys is people playing around with the model and likely voters. some people are taking straight registrations. what you're seeing is a very diverse out there. the one thing you can say is that usually what you see in the polling, they tend in the last week to start poult -- polling close together. i think that both of us like to look it real clear politics, which takes an average of all but polls out there. if you look it real clear politics through today, their average in terms of the generic ballot was eight points for the republican. that is probably about right. maybe lighter from the vote model, but it is showing that kind of margin opposed to the
huge gaps you are seeing between the others. the one thing i was glad to see with gallup, the confusing numbers for a high turnout and for low turnout, and their release them on the same day. give me a gun and let me shoot myself. >> we will take some questions from the audience. if you have a green bay packers shirt on, you have an 95% better chance of getting to ask a question. >> there you go. a second year student, and i have a question for both of you. what you think of that competency of the tea party candidates if they are elected to the house or the senate? t think they will be able to make rational decisions? [laughter]
>> wholly loaded question, batman. >> would you like to reword that? >> i thank you for your incredibly insightful question and i agree with you. i would love to be a mouse in that caucus. thinkk it -- i don't there is a question of confidence. -- competence. i think these candidates -- it has been fascinating to watch the republican party try to bring these candidates into line and bring in more traditional teams. i do not know. what does that first tea party caucus really look like? i think it is a real challenge
here. somebody up here said that these guys are winning on partial privatization of social security. voters do not have a lot of ideas and they do not have any interest that these candidates, if they are elected, they are getting elected because the voters are looking for change. they want to but someone out of washington. they wanted -- they were really unhappy. what happens when these tea party candidates -- i think they're really interesting group of voters in that regard is going to be women voters.
the women voters still want a role for government. they are very unhappy with how that role is implemented right now. women want government to do something and that tea party perspective is very challenging. i think it helped move the women voters back over to the democratic side. >> everyone keeps referring to the tea party movement. they look at it like a party and not understanding that it is a movement. is it an attitude or believe orate under current of feelings about the country? yes, you can look at what has occurred in some of these campaigns. there has been some demonization of certain candidates. some with a little bit of. -- of help. >> of your the one that said the men she. -- you are the one that said
demon sheep. >> they are everyday people that have an everyday attitude about what the problems are and what the solutions should be. some will rise to the occasion in terms of representing not only their group of voters but the wider state or congressional district they are elected to. some will not. one of the reasons why the senate is more susceptible to waves is that in an election like this, you may have some people elected that six years from now, there is no way to get them reelected. the same has been true with liberal democrats as it is with republicans or populist or however you want to betray them. once the campaign is over and they settle down to doing their job, just like everyone else,
some will excel and some will not. to blanket a sense that because what is the trade in the press or the campaign is going to dictate that type of representatives they're going to be, i think, is not good. that is not the way it is going to play out. >> there is something slightly different about the ones that have qualified. you talk to them and they do not sound like your typical person running for the senate. they're not coming here to move a specific piece of legislation. they're coming here to wage philosophical war on the nature of government and what is happening to society. they say they have already made the strategic decision. they're not coming here to be legislatures, but messengers. mitch mcconnell will have a miserable job.
if he gets the 11 and they win control, otherwise he will not have that much power. eight different candidates -- usually the republican party establishes a tremendous amount of authority over its candid it. in the senate, there are eight different candidates defeated by tea party candidates. they will have no real attachment to the establishment. that will have tremendous incentive to block the establishment. and you do not know when someone comes here, to the end of changing or become a legislature? it is impossible to know. it is highly likely you could end up with six or seven jim demints. that will be problematic for republicans putting the other --
putting together of the governing coalition. i think the senate is a sexy story, and i thought i would never say that about the institution. a majority of the senators will be in their first term. the senate is much more partisan than it used to be. you have a lot more people going from the house to the senate and a high percentage used to partisan warfare going to the senate. it is becoming a chamber where there is more partisanship. it will be an interesting story watch them manage this. >> the only thing i would differ run -- that democrats for years have had candidates the were vastly different in terms of philosophy, northeastern democrats versus californian democrats. and they have stood shoulder to shoulder, facing what they view as the enemy and they have done just fine.
myselfways considered more populist and i see them as some modern day extension of populists inside the republican party, being able to stand shoulder to shoulder with other republicans on what they view as the enemy, which is obama with the wrong solutions. i think that they are underestimated. the republicans as a whole are being underestimated on their ability to stand the -- stand together on a goal that is very clear to everyone on the republican camp, whether a tea party candidates or not. >> the point is that the democrats may be the enemy, but the republican leadership may be the opposition. >> good. [laughter] what it is talking about is the normal course of things. they run against washington, and in three months they are totally corrupt.
about the politics, you listen to their rhetoric and it might be at odds with mitch mcconnell. all the sudden, we now have one enemy and therefore i will put aside some of my -- >> a lot of words are being put into the mouths of the tea party. they want to stop the direction on spending, they want government involvement in certain levels to stop. we want there to be philosophy in terms of economics that makes sense in moving the country forward again. i think you will see a lot more alike than not alike. and it has nothing to do with corruption in washington, and everything to do with having a common cause. at georgereshman here washington. if understood the demon sheep
joke. talking about interparty division, what will happen tomorrow in alaska, considering that if elected, lisa murkowski will be the first in a while to win a right in the election? >> all of this obsession, republicans will be holding that seat in alaska when this election is over. >> i should say you're seeing a surge for him, a lot of alaskans are fed up with this being of national debate. it is a very interesting question, about this right in potential, and that is another case where there are some many
disputed ballots. it is going to be -- that race is not going to be over tomorrow. it will not be over for a while. the other thing that is very interesting here to go back to the previous question, i love it when you describe that -- just like the democrats are united [unintelligible] there you go. i think the republicans would use that unity phrase a lot. it is a precursor to how long the tranquillity last, presumably when you are defined by your so-called enemies. >> i agree with what salinas says on everything. -- celinda says on everything.
>> there are all kinds of polls out there. it is hard to pull that end. shooting alaska is hard to poll. you have to find nine people. [laughter] who have a phone. >> that concludes this version of the rally for sanity and or fear. [laughter] our thanks to the terrific panelists. [applause] we want to thank our co- sponsors, the student groups, the college republicans, the college democrats, and the radio station.
our graduate school of political management. we also want to thank the director and her great team here in the public affairs building for handling the logistics for the evening. sarah olson and my colleagues, as well as our terrific student in turns and our volunteers. thanks also and most of all two are terrific audience for joining us here tonight thank you very much. we hope you consider coming back on thursday evening when the graduate with school of political management will post by a rigid will host a post- election forum. it will be moderated by an nbc news correspondent. join us on the second floor for a reception and a continuation of the discussion with the folks on stage. to everyone watching and
>> we will have election results here on c-span tomorrow starting at 7 at p.m. eastern. trans could be evident in the south, especially kentucky and west virginia, but for the rest of the nation has finished dinner. 16 are closed by 8:00. you can watch c-span for victory and concession speeches. we will also hear your reaction tomorrow night. we have aired more than 140 debates during campaign 2010. good to our web site, c- span.org/politics, to see them. here is one of those debate from illinois' 14th district. bill foster and his republican challenger. the 14th congressional district is in the northern illinois. it includes zero roar of -- a
urora. president ronald reagan's birth place. the 14th congressional district was formerly held by denis to astrid for 20 years until he retired. he was speaker of the house for eight of those years. joining me tonight are the two candidates vying for the seat. they are seated in the order that they appear on the ballot. mr. volcker and has been a member of the illinois legislature since 1998, verses are represented and then is a state senator. he is an attorney who also worked with investments partners
in chicago. bill foster, a democrat who is held the 14th congressional seat since 2008. before being elected, he worked for 22 years as a physicist. green party candidates is also on the ballot. we have links to all the candidates on our web page. welcome to chicago tonight. let's begin with you. inbreed sentences, and without referencing your opponent, tell us why you believe you are the best candidate. >> clearly congress is broken. is heading in the wrong direction and our 14th congressional district is not being well represented now. we need people fighting for what is important that this district, jobs in the economy. we will continue to struggle here and we need to turn that around. >> congressman foster, without referencing your opponent, in
brief sentences why you feel you should be reelected. >> this is where i work and raise my family for 25 years. i am not only a scientist, but a businessman who started a company that manufactures most of the theater lightning -- lighting equipment in the united states. i entered the stretch -- i understand the stress and i know how to improve the conditions. >> let's talk about what you believe or your greatest accomplishment so far in politics. in the state legislature now for 11 years, what you believe his been your best accomplishment? >> i worked very diligently when i was the republican spokesperson on the judiciary committee in the house. we dealt with lawsuit reform and saw many good doctors leaving the state of illinois because of the high cost of malpractice insurance. we were meeting with as many
people is interested to craft a piece of legislation there really did keep the doctors here addressing the real problems. that is one thing i was very excited about. also working on are graduated driver license program. i was one of the chief sponsors of part of that legislation, in a bipartisan way to get that passed, and we're seeing a dramatic decrease in 18 deaths. >> 1 law was struck down by this u.s. -- by the indiana supreme court. was that frustrating for you? >> i was disappointed. we saw good positive steps happening on that. there were a couple people on the supreme court that struck down. similar legislation has been upheld in other states. we will try to work to get that passed. it is a significant problem. i was talking to a doctor who paid $40,000 for malpractice insurance in california, and now
pays $200,000 a year. no claims. it is a problem and we have to address it. >> in your years as a public service, what is your biggest achievement? >> i served on the financial- services committee. it was largely the wall street reform bill. when our economy crash, it wasn't inconceivable cataclysm in the united states, losing more than $7 trillion of financial worth. it was completely avoidable. we need to put in place a common sense rules of the road to avoid the risk practices that destroyed our financial system. >> and some say that that has not gone far enough and has not accomplished the major goal they needed to be accomplished in order to prevent a collapse as we have had. >> it is a very important
provision. in too big to fail. -- it ends too big to fail. my number one priority is listed as the number one priority when the wall street journal assembled its group of experts. the first priority was federal capital requirements, including contingent capital, into the capital structure of too big to fail firms. >> there are three newspapers that usually is lean to the right. the number of things that they said in an embracing your opponent is that he breaks with his party when he thinks he is right. >> the most important thing is the voters of the district. we're getting endorsements from local papers and things. all that matters is november 2, when the voters decide.
i get congressman foster credit on cap and trade. he voted on -- no on that. i've also had a strong record in working in a bipartisan way to get things done. i've been down the entire time as a minority. i am encouraged with the great support that we're getting out there. you would always want to have as many endorsements as you can get. but only -- the only one that really matters is the voters. >> congressman foster, the word democrat is conspicuously absent from your lawn adds, your television ads, and hard to find on your website. are you running away from your affiliation with the democratic party? if i do not think so. i've always seen this is an independent district. i have voted for danny -- denny
hastert because i personally like him. to get if you are running as a democrat, why not have the word democrat on there? >> i am sure that it is there somewhere. i do not think of myself primarily as a democrat, frankly. i think of myself as someone who will work hard and vote in the best long-term interest of the 14th. >> but if you are in the legislative bodies that do not have high public opinions at this moment. congress, the perception is that there is a lack of bipartisanship. hal had you worked to counter that? >> it is one of my real disappointments in this business. i can have a wonderful discussions individually with members of congress. when it appears that everyone comes down to the floor of the house of representatives, but foreman to street gangs and tried to undercut any record of
accomplishment by the other side. i'm a scientist at heart and this is a big change. the starting point for any discussion is a sign this is what is correct and what will work in the long term. the first question for the lawyers in the career politicians that dominate politics in this country is not what is true and what is best, but what what can i get away with saying to give me short- term political a bandage? -- advantage? of what kind of view will give me advantage in the next couple of years. you do not ask the question, what will be best for our country 30 years from now? to invest in things like education and scientific research that had a huge pay off but not high pay off in the next election. >> the state legislature also does not have a high favorable opinion. primarily because of budget
issues. the state legislature has shirked its responsibilities and night, with a responsible budget time and time again. how have you worked to counter that we see such control by a couple of people in springfield. they control the agenda and the fact that so often times the budget does not even get discussed until the last week of the session. i've been fighting against that and oftentimes i voted against the budget and spending bills. you also have to vote against the spending tied to it. it has been so irresponsible. we have to work to regain the trust of the people. there was a great proposal recently of changes that we can make to regain the trust of people here in illinois brick columns commission, i think it was caused. -- here in illinois. but collins commission, i think it was called.
it is broken. you look at the district and it is embarrassing when you compare illinois to other states, ours is the worst anywhere. there are so many things we need to be looking at. and i like to see limitations on leadership. when one person has been there for 40 years, that is too long. that is hurting the rest of the legislatures wording -- working for the district. >> your web site has a running tally of the national debt. it seems to be $10,000 a second. you have a banner on your website that says no wasteful spending. tell me what you think is wasteful at the federal level? for the first time in 36 years, congress adjourned without having a budget this year. no budget. the dean of budget and continued to spend. -- they deemed a budget and
continue to spend. he voted for it. we have to go back and look it earmarks, thousands of poor product placed into these bills that have been passed. it is over 19,000 pork projects that have been passed. $36 billion is part of that. we have to stop that and look at areas where we can cut. there is a program that has been out this last summer that allow the public to take a look at programs and see what could be cut, what programs do you favor? if you look at the government was, that 50 programs on their. the thing that we've got to cut our these earmarks. i will vote to do away with your march, these hidden projects that get people to vote for something that would not have voted for. that is a significant savings. >> congressman foster, have you voted for every spending bill?
>> the fundamentals is a budget, and i actually voted against the thing.g it says the allocations for each of the committees. i am not one of those people it would just blow of the government and shut it down by turning off the spending. if we decide we're not going to fund the military operations, it would be a disaster for our troops. you have to s -- you have a very serious discussion of the budget. it should be a plan for how we spend money this year and at 10- year plan for how we're going to spend down the debt. >> give me one example of your thoughts on cutting. >> you have to look at the size of the cuts as well. there are roughly $1 trillion of cuts that have been proposed by a bipartisan group, with all
the think tanks from the far right and the far left. they came up with $1 trillion of cuts that could be applied to the military with little or no compromise to the mission. >> and new backpack? >> i cannot vouch for every single piece of that $1 trillion, a lot of these groups did not come up seriously with anything like that. >> you voted for the troubled asset relief program which came under the bush administration. and in the stimulus package which came at the very beginning of the obama administration. do you still stand by your votes are smart >> absolutely. this was an emergency. families in the united states were losing a trillion dollars a month. our economy was spiraling toward a great depression. as a result, i voted for these.
it was very painful. it was one of the most frustrating times in my career because it did not have to happen. it was the risky practices on wall street. it was that dangerous mortgage products that clogged up our system. had they been properly regulated, this disaster will not happen. >> would you have voted for t.a.r.p. and the stimulus bill? >> i would voted against. the promise was made that it that has, $787 billion, shoved through, there was almost a guarantee that unemployment would not go above 8%. >> who said that? >> i believe it was president obama andy leadership. we have been above 9% as a nation. 14 months we have been above 9.5%. it has not worked for the 14th congressional district. couples take a look at a of ads. beingstart with one baad
aired by mr. foster. >> his company set up a cayman island hedge fund that use taxpayer bailout money and made a profit buying toxic mortgages. firms like this fueled housing prices by selling risky mortgage investments, some of no income verification. homeowners lost millions while randy's company profited from the crisis. >> he may have profited. i did not. >> tell us what you're referring to an ad? >> this was looked at when we make an advertisement. we document in detail what the fax and the articles in the "wall street journal," congressional testimony, and
line by line document the factual basis of this. it was looked at by the "chicago tribune" and they endorsed me. i think that this is a valuable role for the newspapers to understand what is actually correcting what is not. >> did your firm use some of the t.a.r.p.-backed funds for security grew to more >> absolutely not. it is not my firm. i am unemployed there. there's a misperception that this is my firm. it started in 2008. i was hired in 2008. any allegation that this firm started two years ago, that it started the financial crash, that is ridiculous. is changing the subject about what is correct. >> you insist that the firm that you worked for did not use any t.a.r.p.-back fund to buy securities with a margin
absolutely not. we're not a bank. we receive no benefit from that. i've received absolutely no benefit from it. and no toxic assets. >> senator, take a lecture at which reference is your opponent. >> bill foster supported the radical pelosi agenda. what do we have to show for it? fewer jobs. foster has built -- voted for job-killing tax hikes, devastating businesses. lost jobs. the foster-pelosi is wrong for illinois family. >> $25 billion in job-killing tax hikes. >> it is the healthcare plan that was passed. all the taxes their role in of a the next seven or eight years, talking upwards 2 $1 trillion.
>> how will it be killing jobs? >> causing small businesses to pay more. there's so much uncertainty in that health care bill. hundreds of times it says the secretary of health and human services shall determine. it is paralyzing small businesses because they do not know how much health care will cost them. >> at the very start of that film, their shot, it does not mention that the farm bill endorsed me. another organization that normally endorses republicans. >> i think that it is incorrect that it will kill jobs. it is interesting that people who are worried about the total spending over 10 years or so is being promoted as something that
will destroy the economy by a group was responsible, of party for -- responsible for destroying total net worth over a period of eight years. >> you also represented that the trillion dollar government takeover of the healthcare industry -- do you believe that? jim and i think it is in process. i don't think it addresses the real problem, cost containment. even though supporters are saying that is going to raise the cost of health care. that is the problem. we have to go since the -- we have to go after the cost of health care and the sensibility to make sure that people with pre-existing conditions can get coverage, and they are things that we can do in a bipartisan way. >> would you repeal the health care at question margin repealed and replaced. we do have to pull back.
>> congressman foster, doesn't need to be repealed or tweet? >> you tweak it at the most. things like people becoming uninsurable because of pre- existing conditions, that is the fundamental problem. nothing there randy ever proposed was a solution to that and that is the difference here. if you take potshots at a workable plan, unless you're willing to propose a plan that will deal with things like decisions, lifetime limits, and people become uninsurable, it's not a serious proposal. >> let's talk about insurance reform. most candid did say that we need to secure our borders. congressman, what else needs to happen for immigration reform? >> what is important is to provide employers with a rapid and reliable method of identifying who is legal to work here and who is not. and in crackdown on employers that they let the rules. >> do you favor the dream act
which provides for legal residency vermonters that arrived here, completed high school, and complete years of military school or college? >> the people that are identified by the dream act are on everyone's list they would be in line for citizenship. if you try to do just border security, just a dream at, you will not be able to get it through congress. >> this project decide securing our borders, what needs to happen with the immigration reform was a margin securing our borders is huge. we also have to make sure we are enforcing the laws on the books that people cannot hire illegal immigrants. right now there is an unfair and manage in many situations for people that are here. we have to clean up the bureaucracy that takes multiple years for someone coming to america that they have much to offer. we need to lower that time period and find out if someone
is coming to our country and make it less than a year. >> do you favor the dream act? >> i do not. people come here illegally. we have got to go in and secure our borders. is the problem that we have. government is not following or enforcing its on loss. >> amnesty for those here illegally is a path to citizenship? >> no, i'm opposed amnesty. >> i am against amnesty. >> the biggest mistake in your legislative career. >> that is a good question. i think that this -- there certain legislative bills that i picked up that i thought medicines and did not work well enough to make sure that people understood. it's important to be listening and there is some legislation. >> in your two years in
congress, your biggest mistakes? should it had to do with not correctly explain the nature of the financial crisis this country was in. we took the biggest hit the the economy has had since the greatest depression. in 18 months and was in the u.s. lost 25% of their net worth. we did not explain that well enough. two years later, and makes it hard to draw a distinction between the danger that we're facing in the much improved situation much left to go. >> let's get away from politics. what is your favorite pastime, hobby, activity when you are not focusing on legislation in congress? >> i go well long walks with my wife. we live right down by the river and their sub beautiful path. we talk and we walked. it is one of my choice in light. >> for kids and i love going bike riding with them.
we love to go over there and ride around and look for caterpillars. that is my favorite thing to do. >> we wish both of you good luck on november 7. -- november 2. we will talk with the candidates for illinois treasurer vs stay with us. >> and now a debate in that 10th district between dan seals and the republican bob dold. both the cook political report and cq politics rate this race a tossup. >> last time we began our series of candidate forums in advance of the general elections. tonight we focus on the 10th congressional district. the seat is currently held by mark kirk. he is running for the u.s. senate. it is located in the northeast corner of the state and includes communities up and down the
north shore, and it is one of the wealthiest congressional districts in the state. joining us now in the order that they appear on the ballot. republican robert dold. and democrat dan field, who works as an independent business consultants. and now, welcome both of you. the term moderate conservative seems to have been invented for the congressional district, barack obama ran for presidents and mark kirk republican the congressman for 10 years in a row. why are you a moderate conservative? and i'm a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. i am pro-choice, i'm forced himself research, pro- environment. that is what makes me a social moderate. >> dan fields, if you have
called herself a moderate. some say that you are more liberal and more moderate in fiscal policies. >> i am one of those folks who belize and fiscal responsibility and on the social side, i want to put more resources behind small businesses so that it and start hiring again to get the economy turned around. we need to reduce the national debt. i have been endorsed by planned parenthood. i believe i bring both of those things together well. >> neither of you are calling each other of moderate. let's see how you characterize each other dan fields is suddenly running as a pro- business can get it. every politics he supports kills jobs. government run health care, that
tax, energy tax, and greens pending. we need at job creator. look closer and you will find paying taxes for his hustle -- for his employees. >> it is scary to think what he would do with people's money he is supported by a radical group opposing a woman's right to choose. >> we need to keep taxes low, bring down our debt, and get people back to work. i am dan fields and i approve this message. >> bob dold, you said that he supported the largest tax increase in history. >> he said that we needed to
repeal the 2001 and 2003 tax rates. that is scheduled to expire at the end of this year. that would be the largest tax increase in history, impacting every american and small businesses, a devastating impact on jobs. >> you would t -- keep those tax breaks. i would make them permanent if we could. >> is that how you characterize it? judy and i would not. a couple points on this. i called for not increasing taxes until our economy is back on its feet and keep those bush tax cuts extended for year. i called for lower taxes and smaller businesses, the engine of job creation in our economy. 3, i supported the tax cuts, the largest tax cuts for the middle class, applying for 95% of americans wish my opponent opposed. i find that hard to accept. >> did you support them.
>> i have no idea what he's talking about. i am a small business owner. i employee 100 families. we're talking about and using capital back into the system. 75% of small businesses file on their personal returns. we want to keep that low for everybody. >> to clarify, $287 billion of tax cuts, something my opponent opposed. the other piece i think he should look back to is the permit extension of the tax cuts. this would add trillions of dollars to our national debt. it is already too big. i don't think it makes any sense to give ourselves the task that now so that we can raise taxes on a future generation. it's important at fiscal responsibility. >> to support president obama
position on the tax cut right now. at least a year. is that all? >> i would extend a four year period when you have a shaky recovery, the last thing you want to do is raise taxes. it does not create jobs. >> what about the capital gains tax? >> i think we need to have stronger incentives for investments and innovation. i would go further for a research and development tax credit to be made permanent. >> the call to a job killer in his commercial. how would you create jobs? >> look at the policies. every single one that he is supporting, they're going to kill jobs. there is no question about that. >> the stimulus bill? >> the stimulus bill does not
kill jobs. $169 million in the 10th district to create 158 jobs. that is dismal. that is absolutely of the year. we should stop the stimulus spending by the way. if you want to talk about infusing capital back into the hands of job creators, if you really want this stimulate the economy, give them the ability to forecast and have access to the capital that the consent back to the government as payroll taxes. that is the way we would get people back to work. >> to you think the stimulus did promote economic recovery in the country crush a margin i think the stimulus that was out there right now certainly was de to keep unemployment under 8%. unemployment soared past eight%. >> that means it did not work? >> and now were. the government is not the best
actor to pick winners and losers. many private sector to do that. their 29 million small businesses and our country. the role the government is to create an environment that allows small businesses to create jobs. what he isok at saying. moody's has come out and said that the stimulus created or protected millions of jobs and that the unemployment rate would have been much higher. we should have done more, more for small business. targeted stimulus, particularly for small business, the lending act is a great example of a measure that we need more of. so that and start hiring again. to say did we should have done nothing after this economic collapse, i think, makes no sense. that would been job killing. we saw wealth lost, millions of
jobs, but it is not happening fast enough. >> you do support the obama proposals to give $30 billion to small banks to lend to small businesses. isn't that a stimulus? >> it is a loan. even though a lot of republicans said it was not a good thing to do, if it is one about small businesses, that is what we should be focusing on. it is about keeping people off of the unemployment lines. as a small-business owner, that is something that i know that we should do. talking to small businesses and employees struggling to make ends meet, we have to make sure we can help businesses to have good high-paying jobs. >> you would support targeted stimulus. >> absolutely. these are going to be loans here. the banks are basically shutting down lines of credit. creditors are asking them to come in and reevaluate loans. they're going to people out there and ask him to pay more.
and it will have to walk away from that. that is the wrong approach. >> in the introduction, this is probably one of the wealthiest districts in the state. mark kirk said that unemployment is not a problem in this district. canfields, what about the economic disparity in your own district? should that be paid more attention to crush margins and absolutely. i think we do disservice when we describe the 10th as being a community of wealthy towns and townships. there is also a tremendous poverty. what we saw -- go in north chicago and seek unemployment rates of 22%. that is dramatic. this is one of the poorest towns in illinois. when we see that it has gone up year-over-year by 53%, it does
not cover the whole picture. wealthier neighbors move from 4% to 6%. they're having a very difficult time -- they were having a hard time before and they're still suffering now. there's a lot of work that we have to do to get things turned around, in the short run focusing on small businesses, but also won the long run. >> you agree with that characterization of the district? >> absolutely. you can literally go down the street and see more for lease signs. >> social security -- you accuse bob dold of wanting to privatize social security. is that what you want to do? >> absolutely not. the "chicago tribune" came out and said stop trying to scare seniors. i thought that we would have more of a debate on issues throughout this campaign.
>> how you want to fix social security? >> people expect us to go to washington to solve the problems of our time. one of the things that we've got to do -- tw of things have happened with social security. it has to be bought -- broad bipartisan support. without that, it will never happen. >> the second thing? >> make sure that we're keeping our problems to our seniors. those in the system currently in those that will be in the system shortly. when social security was enacted, 62 was the life expectancy in you collected at 65. that is a good business model. now what is 22 years. it is a great thing that we're living longer lives. i think we need to raise the retirement age. we need to raise it gradually. we would raise it two months a year. so those that are at 54 would be
more rigid less impact than those at 52. if you're 54, we raise it two month so that they collected that much later. at 52, we attack on two more months. the at the it is that we have to make a change. if you want social security to be sought for the long haul. >> wire you saying that and what you think needs to be done? >> is made the same statement that my opponent put forth, to put social security funding in the private accounts. that is the bush plan for social security. i think that is the wrong direction. he did not talk about it here but he talks about it in other forums, to create a separate set of accounts that would be invested in exactly the same way. i do not know how that would be paid for. >> you know how you get your
social security sheet in the year? allow individuals to put 7% as an investment. inside the government. >> that is exactly what social security is today. i don't understand this plan. why something of a separate account? social security already invest in treasury bills. you create whole and the social security program. -- a hole in the social security program. >> let's move on to health care. you blast him for supporting government-run health care and supported by medicare cuts. >> $554 billion of medicare cuts. that is the wrong approach. this was designed to end at the cost curve down. this addresses access to
insurance. it does not address cost or quality. we missed a huge opportunity. she did what would you do now? >> medical malpractice reform is a must. if we do not have it, we're not serious about reforming the system. >> would you leave the current health care plan in place? >> we have to amend it. if that the opportunity to repeal it and replace it with a better plan, i would. you have to go after things that you can accomplish right now. tort reform to not prevent -- to prevent defensive medicine. >> dan fields, what should be fixed? >> we should vote to improve it. let's be clear. medicare trustees say themselves that because of a health care bill, their health has been extended for 12 years. they are in better financial state -- shape. that is according to them, not me.
the health care bill has pre- existing conditions, expanding coverage to the age of 26, 32 million more americans. having said that, they love some major things up. medicare reimbursement for doctors was not addressed. patients know the true cost is not addressed. it does not make sense. >> there should be some changes. but you do not want to repeal it. >> this is the first-ever, not the last that. we've got a lot of work to do. >> we're running out of time. abortion -- are you or are you not pro-choice? >> i am pro-choice. jim plant. at -- planned parenthood says that he is the only pro-choice upon it.
>> i am pro-choice. cheating you can go to the illinois family website, you supported the unborn paid thinkess act, i do not that makes him pro-choice. planned parenthood has said that he declined to meet with them. that doesn't look like pro- choice. >> the things that we have gone over and over with as. republicans majority for choice had endorsed me. i am pro-choice. >> a couple of questions here. >> we did not get to the other ad, the one ready attacked me. how we don't pay taxes on the employees, that is absolutely false. i thought we would have a debat